Turbo Beaver
30th Jul 2005, 09:28
Cathay Pacific flight attendants seek court ruling on `fatigue' regulations The Director General of Civil Aviation increased the potential for cabin crew fatigue and endangered the flying public and attendants when he flouted legally binding regulations to approve new Cathay Pacific schemes which reduce minimum flight rest, or "bunk time,'' the High Court heard Thursday.
In what is being framed as a battle between the interests of Cathay Pacific Airways and those of its flight attendants, the Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union is seeking to overturn the decision to approve a new Flight Time Limitation Scheme regarding minimum "bunk rest.''
Counsel representing the flight attendants in the judicial review, John Scott SC, said the more bunk time that is granted to the crew, the more flight attendants Cathay Pacific would have to put on duty. But, with fewer flight attendants on duty as well as less bunk time, the greater the potential for fatigue - defined as when ``operational capabilities are impaired.''
The bunk time reductions are ``particularly acute,'' said Scott, since they come at a time when Cathay recently introduced non-stop flights to New York, which take about 17 hours, and is also about to introduce three daily non-stop flights to Los Angeles. There are also plans to fly more frequently to San Francisco, said Scott.
All these journeys ``test the limits of the range for the aircraft and, as a result, test the limits of the endurance of the crew,'' he said.
Scott submits that the director general contravened a legally binding Hong Kong Civil Aviation Document, CAD 371, which is described as ensuring ``the avoidance of fatigue in aircrew.''
The Flight Attendants Union was alerted to the fact that Cathay Pacific intended to alter the inflight rest schedule in June last year, and appealed to the Civil Aviation Department, which originally said it need not approve the Cathay amendments.
The director general approved the new scheme, effective from January, ``despite the concerns of the cabin crew concerning fatigue and the safety of their members.'' It also contravenes the provisions of a legally binding aviation document, submits Scott.
For a 19-hour flight, cabin crew rest time has been reduced from a minimum of six hours to 4½ hours, according to a table submitted to the court. Scott pointed out that the lawyers for the director general and Cathay Pacific argue that the CAD 371 document is ``by way of guidelines'' and merely represents ``the manner in which the director general wants to see the scheme operate.''
``In effect, they are saying `none of your business' ... these are remarkable words to have submitted to court in this day and age,'' Scott said. ``These are retrograde steps to the dark days [before the parameters for a judicial review were widened].''
He added that it even goes further than most legislation to clearly specify ``provisions that are mandatory, and those that are discretionary.''
Chairwoman of the Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union, Becky Kwan, has claimed the effect of the amended scheme means that, on flights of more than 14 hours, cabin crew members will have to work two extra hours per hour of rest, compared to the previous extra hour per two hours rest.
The hearing continues today before Justice Michael Hartmann.
In what is being framed as a battle between the interests of Cathay Pacific Airways and those of its flight attendants, the Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union is seeking to overturn the decision to approve a new Flight Time Limitation Scheme regarding minimum "bunk rest.''
Counsel representing the flight attendants in the judicial review, John Scott SC, said the more bunk time that is granted to the crew, the more flight attendants Cathay Pacific would have to put on duty. But, with fewer flight attendants on duty as well as less bunk time, the greater the potential for fatigue - defined as when ``operational capabilities are impaired.''
The bunk time reductions are ``particularly acute,'' said Scott, since they come at a time when Cathay recently introduced non-stop flights to New York, which take about 17 hours, and is also about to introduce three daily non-stop flights to Los Angeles. There are also plans to fly more frequently to San Francisco, said Scott.
All these journeys ``test the limits of the range for the aircraft and, as a result, test the limits of the endurance of the crew,'' he said.
Scott submits that the director general contravened a legally binding Hong Kong Civil Aviation Document, CAD 371, which is described as ensuring ``the avoidance of fatigue in aircrew.''
The Flight Attendants Union was alerted to the fact that Cathay Pacific intended to alter the inflight rest schedule in June last year, and appealed to the Civil Aviation Department, which originally said it need not approve the Cathay amendments.
The director general approved the new scheme, effective from January, ``despite the concerns of the cabin crew concerning fatigue and the safety of their members.'' It also contravenes the provisions of a legally binding aviation document, submits Scott.
For a 19-hour flight, cabin crew rest time has been reduced from a minimum of six hours to 4½ hours, according to a table submitted to the court. Scott pointed out that the lawyers for the director general and Cathay Pacific argue that the CAD 371 document is ``by way of guidelines'' and merely represents ``the manner in which the director general wants to see the scheme operate.''
``In effect, they are saying `none of your business' ... these are remarkable words to have submitted to court in this day and age,'' Scott said. ``These are retrograde steps to the dark days [before the parameters for a judicial review were widened].''
He added that it even goes further than most legislation to clearly specify ``provisions that are mandatory, and those that are discretionary.''
Chairwoman of the Cathay Pacific Flight Attendants Union, Becky Kwan, has claimed the effect of the amended scheme means that, on flights of more than 14 hours, cabin crew members will have to work two extra hours per hour of rest, compared to the previous extra hour per two hours rest.
The hearing continues today before Justice Michael Hartmann.